Page History

...

• Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) – Elisa Cooper
• Registries Stakeholder Group(RySG) – Keith Drazek
• Registrars Stakeholder Group (RrSG) – Michele Neylon
• Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers  (ISPCP) – Tony Holmes
• Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) –  Kristina Rosette
• Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) –Marie-Laure Lemineur
• Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) – Bill Drake
• Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) –David Cake

15h00 15h45 - 18h00 (Local Time / Durban) Onwards

...

Comments or questions arising.

Item 3: Consent agenda

No items

Item 4: MOTION - To adopt the charter for the Policy & Implementation Working Group (15 mins)

The issue regarding the boundary between policy development and implementation work has been a discussion point for some time and it has been a central theme in the execution of the new gTLD programme. In addition, the Council has been asked to consider issues for policy guidance and may well need to look at the evolution of its own work and processes to accommodate this type of request in future.

...

4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
4.2 Discussion of motion.
4.3 Vote (Threshold: simple majority in each house 50% i.e. 4 CPH 7 NCPH)

Item 5: MOTION - On ICANN Bylaw recommendation (15 mins)

The work undertaken to deal with the most recent Reconsideration Request (13-3) highlighted the point that there is no currently defined policy or process within ICANN that requires the Board of ICANN or the ICANN staff to consult with the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the policy development process (PDP).

This motion recognises this point and seeks to recommend to the ICANN Board, a change to the bylaws of ICANN to mandate such consultation in future.

5.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neumann)
5.2 Discussion of motion.
5.3 Vote (Threshold: simple majority in each house 50% i.e. 4 CPH 7 NCPH) 

Item 6: MOTION - Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings (15 mins)

The “locking” of a domain name registration associated with UDRP proceedings is not something that is literally required by the UDRP as written, but is a practice that has developed around it. As a result, there is no uniform approach, which has resulted in confusion and misunderstandings. The GNSO Council initiated a PDP on this specific topic in December 2011 and tasked the WG to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings.

The PDP Working Group has now submitted its Final Report for GNSO Council consideration containing 17 full consensus recommendations (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-final-05jul13-en.pdf).

6.1 - Update as necessary
6.2 - Review motionReading of the motion (Jeff Neumann)
6.3 - Discussion of the motion
6.4 Vote (Threshold: simple majority in each house 50% i.4 - Next stepse. 4 CPH 7 NCPH) 

Item 7: UPDATE AND DISCUSSION – Proposed GNSO Council Letter on IDN Variants (15 mins)

During its meeting in Beijing, the ICANN Board requested that, by 1 July 2013, interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide staff with any input and guidance they may have to be factored into implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs' (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-11apr13-en.htm#2.a). The Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs examines potential challenges from a user experience perspective when variants of IDN TLDs are activated and offers recommendations to users to minimize risks and optimize the implementation. 

Ideally, input is requested on:

...

c)     Which recommendations, if any, require additional policy work by the ICANN community and should be referred to the relevant stakeholder group for further policy work

On 30 June 2013, a letter was sent to the ICANN Board confirming that this work was being undertaken within the JIG (Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Group) and that a response for consideration by the GNSO Council as well as the ccNSO Council would be tabled at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Accordingly, an extension of deadline to 19 July 2013 was requested.

Here, we review the proposed response, in the form of a letter from the Chair of the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board and give consideration to approving such a letter.

http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/40023

7.1 Discussion
7.2 Next steps

Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – GNSO Review (15 mins)
Discussion of the GNSO Review submitted for public comment.
The GNSO Council has previously discussed the action it may take in anticipation of an ICANN Board initiated review. 

Under this item, the Council will receive an update with the latest information on the likely timing and detail of the Board initiated review.  On the basis of the latest information, the Council will decide on what, if any, next steps are to be taken

Item 9: DISCUSSION – Cross Community Working Groups (15 mins)

The GNSO has previously drafted a set of Principles on Cross Community working groups and circulated these widely for comment and input.

...

Item 10: DISCUSSION – Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (10 mins)

The Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services has published its initial report.

...

Item 11:  Any Other Business (5 min)

Item 12: Open Microphone (10 mins)

...